Publius Huldah vs. Article V: Part VI

Publius Huldah. The Bill of Rights and Constitution are ignored. Our Framers advised two remedies to enforce the Constitution. First, James Madison said our constitution requires a virtuous people to select men of virtue and wisdom to office. The second remedy is “don’t go along with the lawlessness.” State legislatures must oppose violations of the Constitution instead of eagerly taking handouts to implement violations of our Constitution. (Timeline 36:00 – 43:00. View her speech here.)

Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison wrote that each state has the natural right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws on their own. Since the federal government is the creature of the states, the states are the final authority on whether their creature violated the compact. These are the framers’ words and is proof they supported nullification by the states.

Don’t believe that the states are victims of federal tyranny. When they take money from the government for unconstitutional programs, they are “enthusiastic participants in federal tyranny.”

Rodney Dodsworth Response. Among the three, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison, only Jefferson advocated legislative nullification of congressional statutes. From the Kentucky Resolutions of 1799, “That the several states who formed that instrument (the Constitution), being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and, that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.” Reason demands those who formed the compact, and not its administrators, be the judge of the extent of powers delegated to it. Despotism is assured when the general government is the exclusive judge of delegated powers.

Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist#33: When individuals form a governed society, the laws of that society must be the supreme regulator of their conduct. When several “societies combine into a larger political society, the latter, in accordance with its constitutional powers, must necessarily be supreme . . . otherwise, it would be a mere treaty, which is dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a government.”

However, acts of the larger society that are inconsistent with the powers granted by member societies are usurpations and deserve to be treated as such. Hamilton asked, “Who judges whether laws passed for executing the powers of the Union are necessary and proper?” Further, “If the federal government should overreach the just bounds of its authority, making tyrannical use of its powers, the people, who created it, must appeal to the standard they have formed and correct the injury done to the Constitution as needs may suggest and prudence justify.” Hamilton advised the people to take appropriate, measured action. Just as every infraction of the Constitution does not justify revolution, neither do they necessarily justify nullification.

James Madison, in his January 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, viewed the Constitution as the deliberative expression of the whole society, of We the People, and therefore the entirety of society should, if necessary, reverse unconstitutional acts. Like Hamilton, he advised a measured approach in which the states, acting in concert through Interposition:

Seek congressional repeal of the offending law.

Introduce a constitutional amendment through congress.

Make applications to an Article V state amendments convention.

As opposed to rendering the offensive act as void within their states, the state legislatures appeal through their senators for congressional reconsideration. Next, and through congress once again the state legislatures press their senators to seek relief through a Constitutional amendment. Finally, on behalf of the sovereign people, states make applications for an Article V convention.

Here, in a convention of the states and subsequent ratification conventions is the deliberative assembly of one people, one nation, with one interest, that of the whole, where, not local purposes, not local prejudices are the guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. James Madison, wrote, “An individual independence of the states is utterly irreconcilable with the idea of an aggregate sovereignty.”

When members of a republic are faced with usurpation or tyranny, they must correct the errors of the larger republic; it is admission that a government composed of reps of the people and states has tripped, if not failed. The ultimate question to be answered is, when faced with unconstitutional acts by the national government, what is the most appropriate or least objectionable response by the sovereign people?

Do states have a natural law duty to secure the welfare of their communities? They certainly do. Nullification of unconstitutional laws, regulations and scotus opinions is consistent with natural law. Yet, this approach is not hazard-free. When an individual state legislature has the power to defeat congressionally enacted law, law enacted by other states in the Union, the Constitution ceases to be a societal compact. Taken far enough, invalidation of national acts by state legislatures eventually destroys the larger society created by the Constitution, and renders the US once again a de facto confederation of independent republics. Nullification is a recipe for disunion. (See Nullification Crisis of 1832.)

My break with Ms. Huldah over nullification isn’t as sharp as my disagreements with her in previous posts. It isn’t that she is wrong, but nullification is not the better or more expedient solution. Legislative nullification of national laws not only invites disunity, it practically begs for the use of force. Unfortunately, where it is practiced it’s been used to oppose valid Constitutional acts of the nation! By law or practice, sanctuary cities to varying degrees protect illegal aliens from deportation. I doubt this is the sort of nullification Ms. Huldah had in mind.

While the state nullification route is destructive, the Article V convention process is unacceptably too slow to deal with rampant, unconstitutional acts in the thousands by the national government.

But, can the two approaches be melded into an acceptable form that better serves and may save our republic? Yes. Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendment to empower three fifths of state legislatures to repeal national laws, regulations, and supreme court decisions, strikes the balance sought by Article V supporters and opponents. Being neither objectionable nor ponderous, it would empower our state legislators, on behalf of the people, to stand athwart tyranny. Knowing this, a reinvigorated people will be naturally encouraged to closely watch and participate in statewide matters and elections. In quick time, the nation will witness improvement in the quality of state legislators, and just maybe save the republic.

Post navigation

33 thoughts on “Publius Huldah vs. Article V: Part VI”

1) Non-cooperation Nullification. This is the right of a state to NOT use its resources to assist the federal government in the enforcement of laws that state finds unconstitutional. For instance, the Sheriffs of the state may not arrest people breaking the unconstitutional law. It is also the right of the state to not take bribes from the states and have to abide by the strings attached to those funds. (I will discuss the taking of bribes and why it happens in a separate comment.) Non-cooperation nullification is on weak constitutional ground, but many find such actions acceptable.

2) Direct Nullification is the passage of a law in a state in direct contradiction of a federal law, ruling or regulation. For instance, it would mean REQUIRING the sheriffs of the state to forcibly stop federal agents from enforcing a federal law within the state. In another example, Under the supremacy clause, nullification is: a) unconstitutional, b) illegal, c) slow, d) ineffective. The other states in the union rejected, via letter or proclamations, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. The other states found them to be unconstitutional.

Even if “direct nullification” were constitutional, think about the practicalities: there are tens of thousands of federal laws which should rightly be nullified as outside the scope of the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 (when you keep with originalist interpretation of the general welfare and commerce clauses, which the Supreme Court has not done.) In order for a federal law to be effectively nullified, a super-majority of state legislatures would have to pass specific nullification acts — say, at least 40 states. Getting just one single state legislature to pass just one nullification act takes an enormous amount of energy. If you can get the states legislatures to cooperate with the plan (which is more than doubtful), we are talking about having 40 states nullify, one state and one federal law at a time, tens of thousands of overreaching federal laws. Do the math. This means hundreds of thousands of individual nullification acts in state legislatures across the country. This is a virtually impossible task. We’re not talking years here. And not decades. We’re talking centuries! Oh, and while the states are acting, the feds will be passing new rulings, laws and regulations faster than the states can nullify old ones.

I am curious as to how a state could nullify a federal law like the PPACA (Obamacare)? No state involvement is required to implement the law and no state involvement is required to enforce the law. More than 30 states tried to get the law overturned in the Supreme Court. Yet, to this day, not a single one of them has found an effective way to nullify it.

I daresay, however, the need to use nullification as a means to stop federal over-reaches would be greatly diminished if the 17th Amendment were repealed.

Agree. History has shown that republics or limited monarchies without an aristocratic chamber between the House of Reps and Executive are doomed. The 17th must go, and state legislatures must be empowered to overturn scotus opinions.

This is a document (PDF) by Natelson recently that covers Nullification etc.
I have investigated this nullification idea for some time, and it just is not the proper tool. It is un-Constitutional and abrogates Article VI (the Supremacy clause) of the Constitution to boot.
Now, some use the word “nullification” when the term “interposition” is called for. The link below goes to a document explaining the differences. The important thing is, interposition has been tried repeatedly and does not work with this out of control Federal government. The next Constitutional step is Article V.
If the country has given up on the Constitution, some may want to use nullification, which leads to civil war etc.
—-https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/06-27-16_natelson_interposition_with_banner.pdf

As usual, you are distorting the Founders and making things up. I read your linked page: “James Madison, in his January 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions of 1798” NO PLACE WITHIN IT does Madison do as you write, “Like Hamilton, he advised a measured approach in which the states, acting in concert:

Seek congressional repeal of the offending law.
Introduce a constitutional amendment through congress.
Make applications to an Article V state amendments convention.”

Neither Article V or another convention is discussed. I find that you are either not willing to take the time to understand the material or you are intentionally lying to promote rolling our Constitution into the operating room. Either, I find treasonous and offensive.

As Madison explained, he used the term states as “the people composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign capacity.”
The highest sovereign capacity of the people is constitutional law-giving. Article V.
From the Report:
“The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”
From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interposition]:
“Interposition as originally conceived does not result in a declaration by the state that the federal law may not be enforced in the state. Rather, the law would still be enforced.[3] Thus, interposition may be seen as more moderate than nullification.”
“There are various actions that a state might take to “interpose” itself once it has determined that a federal law is unconstitutional. These actions include communicating with other states about the unconstitutional law, attempting to enlist the support of other states, petitioning Congress to repeal the law, introducing Constitutional amendments in Congress, or calling a constitutional convention.[4]”

Rodney, I don’t have time at the moment — possibly a few days from now — to refute all the errors, omissions, out of context statements, and plain errors of fact in your above article.

I don’t have time either to verify your quote from James Madison about “. . . aggregate sovereignty.” but it just does not sound at all like anything Madison would say. WOULD YOU PLEASE SUPPLY YOUR SOURCE FOR THAT QUOTE?

Even if it does turn out to be accurate, you have taken it out of its broader context: Madison was quite sympathetic to the strong national government views of Hamilton early on. But after the experiences with Hamilton’s first National Bank, Madison admitted that he’d made an error in supporting the kind of “aggregate sovereignty” your quoted phrase credits him with, which supports your generally flawed contentions you express in your article.

Please confirm, if you can, the source of that quote by citing its source, and please acknowledge the historical fact that Madison essentially switched sides from being a partial supporter of the views of Hamilton on these issues to becoming virtually a thorough supporter of the Jeffersonian vew that the Federal gov’t needs to be kept as weak as possible in every area except those explicitly authorizing Fed Gov powers in the Constitution.

I really don’t have the time, but as a BTW, the moral justification of our prosecution of Nazi mass murderers and torturers of civilians after WWII was that following orders is NOT a valid excuse. IE, every man must make his own judgements on what is right, and HAS A MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO, which is a part of his right to his own life and pursuit of happiness, and logically follows from them.

That’s not a valid source. Only an original source. Something written in 1905 cannot be an original source for something Madison said.

I would strongly susspect, though, that the source you cite must have footnoted or otherwise indicated the source from which HE obtained that quote. THAT would more likely be an original source.

There are TOO MANY provably false quotes from our founders going around these days, and they’ve been increasing exponentially since the resuscitation of the COS movement (which the hard left has been pushing for nearly half a century now in order to destroy the constitution), with some beloved leader of the COS movement or someone who’s swallowed their re-writing of US history has swallowed, and too many thoroughly false references to court decisions which were the exact opposite of what COS charlatans claim. These get swallowed whole, by means of the principle variously ascribed to Mark Twain, Winston Churchill, and a few others, namely that “A Lie can travel half-way ’round the world before Truth gets her boots on.”

This mushrooming of mis-information by many whose have great sympathies with the hard left (such as Meckler and Farris) and who pose as conservatives while quietly aiding and assisting hard left groups behind the scenes, has made it far more essential that we “vette” cited historical quotations as far back to the very original sources as possible — these charlatans count on the laziness of their average reader, who will almost always swallow whole anything that has a footnote, without ever actually checking the footnote.

An “original” source of a Madison quote might be, for example, his notes on the Constitutional convention of 1787, personal letters and other types of correspondence, his own personal writings about issues, his speeches and public statements, quotes of his own words by those present at the time he stated them, such as a letter from Founder A to Founder B on what Madison had told him at some prior occasion (ie, an eyewitness or “ear” witness to the statement), etc. Other not quite as reliable sources would be from then-current newspapers, or some person who knew Madison offering his own paraphrase of what he thought was Madison’s view.

As I readily admitted in my original post above, and still readily admit, the quote from Madison may well be very accurate in its specific wording. But for the reasons just given here, I can’t permit myself to repeat the errors I’ve made in trusting unsupported quotations from others in recent times, especially from sources pushing for a “COS.” (This is not to say that many supporters of a “COS” are dishonest — just that they are gullible and too trusting of the “COS” leadership, and propagate by repitition the false quotes which they have heard from sources they mistakenly trust).

Madison in particular — probably because he kept notes of the 1787 convention which directly disprove several of the claims about that convention (esp in relation to Article V) made by the COS Project charlatans. This forces them to find ways of “massaging” many of Madison’s statements into a form that seems to support their own re-write of US history. Taking things out of context, attributing actually false quotes, or citing “facts” which are the precise opposite of what those present at the time and all historians since have regarded as irrefutable truth, have become some of the methods used to convince trusting conservatives that an Art V convention is a godsend from the Founders intended to protect us from a corrupted Fed Gov. In fact, our founders were intelligent men who understood why Art V could not so protect us, and that was not their intention in adding Article V to the ’87 Constitution.

Rodney, you are literally making stuff up. Yes, the states on their own decide. The courts are the final authority like mentioned in the article. No place, no place, is Article V or a convention or amending the Constitution mentioned. Those favoring Article V usage do not understand the history or many references.

PAPER doesn’t fix things so changing paper likewise does not!

“The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.”
— James Madison, Federalist 48

Shawn, if paper does not mean anything, then what are you pretending to protect? If you really believe that changing the paper has no effect, then what harm is there is changing the paper? And why are you fighting against changing the paper?

Such utter nonsense. Please come down off your ivory tower into the real world.

Clearly paper does have an effect — women are voting, blacks are voting, the voting age is now 18, Presidents are limited to two terms. All of those were written on paper. In fact, the Bill of Rights is paper. Are you against the Bill of Rights?

Great quote from Madison, by the way. Here is another in which he shows that his solution to the demarcation issue is the Article V convention, in his letter to Edward Everett of August 28, 1830:

“Should the provisions of the Constitution as here reviewed be found not to secure the Government and rights of the States against usurpations and abuses on the part of the United States the final resort within the purview of the Constitution lies in an amendment of the Constitution according to a process applicable by the States.”

Rodney that isn’t how the world works. You posted a fraudulent reference from an imaginary theory you generated. Before continuing to spew forth more propaganda and distortions, ethics demand you either clear up the prior misunderstanding or admit your error. Without accomplishing either of those, you have no credibility going forward.

What happens when one, say, tries to block an abortion clinic? They are arrested and thrown in jail. Thus, would you say that the Roe V. Wade decision, which was clearly unconstitutional, is the law of the land? It must be. No, it is. Whether it should be or not does not matter. It is the law.

How is your precious (and unconstitutional and non-existent) nullification working on that issue? How is yelling “defend, not amend” solving that problem? How are elections stopping the bloodbath?

Not. For decades, not.

All this talk of (unconstitutional) nullification, electing better federal officials, and “just defend, not amend” is garbage. It is useless spitting in the wind. As the saying goes, doing the same thing twice and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

Middle America is fed up. We are taking our country back. It is either Article V or it’s the second amendment. We are trying Article V first because it is the moral, peaceful and constitutional approach. It is proper that it be tried first. And if it fails, well, our country is already on the track to failure anyway.

You and the Article V naysayers have no solution. It’s that simple. Your “solutions” have kept on on the downward spiral.

At least we are following the Founders. At least we are following the CONSTITUTIONAL solution. We are the ones truly honoring the Founder by using the tool THEY defined in Article V. We are the true protectors of the original constitution. We will be the ones to save the Republic while you stand on the sidelines yelling epithets and slinging verbal arrows. We are the three-percenters. We are the Re-founders.

Bobo – No, the world works that when someone advances a cacamammy theory and is called out with facts and then asks the perpetrator of the fraud to clarify their position, they do or they are not credible.

Bobo man, since you refuse to help your fellow constitutional re-writer answer the challenge of him having no facts, perhaps you wish to move on to another topic needing answers, such as this?:

Thomas Jefferson clearly stated that changing the Constitution was NOT the way to enforce it. Can you please explain why COSP decided to lie and change his written words as I have documented?

Again, Shawn, as always, you avoid the questions you cannot answer. What is YOUR solution? You have none. Instead, you put yourself above the Founders and say we should just rip out the convention from Article V and ignore it. You pay the highest DISRESPECT for our Founders with every comment you make.

Do you want to understand what the Founders did when the Constitution was mis-interpreted and abused? You need to study the 11th amendment. It was passed SPECIFICALLY to overturn a misinterpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. You are the one who has not done their homework.

You want to hide behind a bunch of malarkey, made-up, twisted arguments based on any recognition of how the real world works. We are losing our Republic. That is the fact. We have a unique opportunity, one that has not ever occurred in the century after the progressive movement started. 33 State Legislatures are controlled in both houses by Republicans. We have more people awake to the fact of their stolen liberties than ever before. Now is the time to strike. Now is the time to take back the liberties stolen from us by the federal government over the last 100+ years.

You have not done your homework on Scalia’s attitude about the convention of states to propose amendments. Scalia has been misquoted and taken out of context by Cato and a few others. It’s truly embarrassing to watch how they have twisted Scalia’s words in a desperate attempt to uphold the untenable positions on Article V.

AGAIN, you have failed to address the post. COSP attorney, PR, and a state legislator since hired as a COSP adviser, CHANGED the message of Thomas Jefferson in their email directly to the legislator attendees at the COSP convention theater production. That is fraud and treason against the Constitution.

IF you fail to answer that fraud, then you endorse it. COSP has nothing. When you alter the words of the Founders, your effort is fraud.

Let’s give you a chance to address documented FACTS again:

COS message was: Recently Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG) held what they called a “simulated” convention to fool America. Rita Dunaway, Special Counsel to CSG and Utah Representative Ken Ivory, chairman of the “convention” sent an email to the “actors” after the filming ended. Ms. Dunaway wrote the email, embedding a note from Rep. Ivory that reads in part, “As Thomas Jefferson counseled this ‘must be done by the states themselves, erecting such barriers at the constitutional line as cannot be surmounted’….”

The ACCURATE message can be found in a letter from Thomas Jefferson To Archibald Stuart written December 23, 1791, which reads in part, “Then it is important to strengthen the state governments: and as this cannot be done by any change in the federal constitution, (for the preservation of that is all we need contend for,) it must be done by the states themselves, erecting such barriers at the constitutional line as cannot be surmounted either by themselves or by the general government. The only barrier in their power is a wise government….”

How do you answer the COS attorney, public relations person and a state legislator lying to over 150 state legislators in their effort to roll the Constitution into the operating room?

Anything less than answering the above is endorsing it and treason. You don’t get to offer a treasonous solution and demand those that call it dishonest offer a solution themselves to void the fraud. That is a logical fallacy and insane.

Phyllis Schlafly, and many distinguished conservatives, knew Scalia and he is quoted quite correctly by them. Your Con Con favored quote which is being posted EVERYWHERE overnight since COS got its recent funding from the globalist Koch Brothers, was a line from 1979 — a very different political climate than this–and that is why Scalia had come to change his mind. Using a 1979 quote instead of his 2015 remark is, I think, dishonest. On a panel, Marvin Kalb asked a question of Seth Dawson from the office of Congressman Denny Heck (D-Wash.) regarding the recent suggestion by Justice John Paul Stevens of a constitutional amendment to modify the Second Amendment. The question was, “If you could amend the Constitution in one way, what would it be, and why?” The first to answer was Scalia, who replied:

I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who knows what would come out of that? But, if there were a targeted amendment that were adopted by the states, I think the only provision I would amend is the Amendment Provision. I figured out, at one time, what percentage of the populace could prevent an Amendment to the Constitution. And, if you take a bare majority in the smallest states by population, I think something less than two percent of the people can prevent a Constitutional Amendment. It ought to be hard, but it shouldn’t be that hard. [Emphasis added.]

Priscilla, you are just parroting the “party line”. Of course Scalia does not want a “constitutional convention” . He CLEARLY knew the difference between a constitutional convention and an Article V convention (as demonstrated by his earlier remarks). It is YOU (and the other article V naysayers) who are ascribing the meaning of his use of the term “constitutional convention” as an Article V convention. This is typical illogical misinterpretation practiced by your side.

Again, you want to deflect and debate about what Scalia said (with false interpretations) rather than go after the core issue. The core issue is that we are losing our Country. You have no solution. The FOUNDERS created the Article V convention for the exact time we are experiencing now — when Congress refuses to do what is right and no other branch of the federal government will use the checks and balances to stop them.

We will save our country. You will be sitting on the side. What will you tell your grandchildren when they ask you “what did you do during the great constitutional crisis”? The only answer you will be able to give is that you worked against the Founders and the people who sided with the Founders.

You are working against the Founders. You are dishonoring the FOUNDERS themselves by dishonoring the process the FOUNDERS inserted into Article V. And by “FOUNDERS”, I mean not only the 37 who signed the Constitution, but also the hundreds of FOUNDERS who ratified all of the Constitution and all of Article V — including the convention to propose amendments. You are putting yourself above the FOUNDERS, as if you are wiser and know better than them. Such arrogance. Such disrespect for the constitution and even disrespect for the very foundations of law.

Deflect, distract and deter. That is your motto. You will talk about anything else but your solution. You have no solution and it is clear at this point that any further replies to you will result in nothing.

Again, we are the people trying to save our country. You are sitting on the side and jeering, like those who jeered at the patriots who fought for independence. We are saving our country. One day you will thank us. You’re welcome — in advance.

The “core issue” is that Constitutional Convention and Convention of States are EXACTLY the SAME thing as they both use Article V to call for a convention. There is no difference. The name has been changed because Con Con efforts in the past have been resoundingly defeated due to wise leaders– and your money and handlers realize they MUST call it something else in order to get past all of the bad press. The issue of the way our nation is going is a separate one altogether. You cannot “save” our nation with a bad idea. Interesting that most of the COS convention of states people are NeverTrumpers who see no hope for this administration and the maverick leadership President Trump offers. There is always hope with prayer and sacrifice.

Why must one offer you a SOLUTION while arguing against your COS? They are two topics. However, the hope filled solution is happening and we are electing better people and staying away from globalist money funding think tanks–especially the one funding your COS movement. Koch Brothers are KNOWN for taking over small libertarian and conservative think tanks and turning them into their own globalist agenda. The great Murray Rothbard complained about what Koch did with Cato and he got away from them when he realized their agenda. Trump is draining the swamp. Join this Trump movement rather than oppose it. If you all would spend your well-funded energy lobbying and advising the new administration you would be doing some good. Instead you treat grassroots conservatives and populists, like Phyllis Schlafly and Andy Schlafly, with ill will and work to bamboozle and confuse with your false quotes from Antonin Scalia.

The reason you are asking about why you must offer a solution is because you have no other solution.

You bring up federal elections as a possible solution. (at least now I finally got you to ATTEMPT to answer the question). What about those elections? How have they been working for ya? Not! The federal government has only grown larger and larger for almost 10 decades straight in a row. 85% of Congress gets re-elected every 2 years. Yet you want to depend on elections! That’s a farcical idea. Not a solution.

You keep bringing up the Koch brothers. Do you have PROOF that they are behind the COS? Even if you did, you should know that I, along with the other almost 1 million volunteers involved in the COS project, have not received 1 penny from them. Neither are the thousand or more STATE lawmakers who have voted for the COS being manipulated by the Kock brothers. So, drop the silly tin-foil hat conspiracy theories and come back to reality.

Then you bring up Trump. Let’s examine whether Trump will be able to “drain the swamp”. Although he was clearly the better candidate over Killary, he is not, by far, a true “conservative” or “constitutionalist.” He is a populist. He will certainly stem the bleeding and may buy our country a few more years. But remember that he is fighting the establishment in Congress. Trump proposes term limits. The very quick and firm response from McConnell was that “term limits are dead on arrival”. Trump will not be able to must the 2/3 vote needed in both houses to propose term limits, and even if such an amendment were proposed, it would be the one written by Congress and will probably allow many, many terms (e.g., 24 years per chamber).

Further, what Trump does through existing powers and false interpretations of the Constitution can be undone by the next President. We are seeking for PERMANENT solutions which are not dependent on elections.

You know, you keep bringing up funding. You clearly are jealous that our ideas and our strategy are attracting the funding of over 70,000 different people (at last count). Maybe you should get a clue from the fact that your side is not attracting the same funding. Maybe people aren’t sold on your approach and your solutions. Have you thought about that?

Phyllis Schlafly and Andy Schafly have not been treated with “ill will”. I have stated, as have many hundreds of COS leaders, that the two of them have made significant contributions to the limited government movement. We do, however, strongly disagree on their Article V positions.

So, now that I have responded to everything you have slung against the wall to see what will stick, we arrive back at where we started. What is your solution? What are you proposing that is different from what has already been tried for many decades without results? You have no solution.

Furthermore, I think your “tab” pointing to Scalia’s 1979 quote on your luxurious Koch-funded website is DECEITFUL! You all are misleading others with your deceit about Antonin Scalia’s opinion on your COS. He spoke of your COS within the last year, in very clear language AGAINST it: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/22625-justice-scalia-s-warning-of-a-constitutional-convention. (“I certainly would not want a Constitutional Convention. I mean whoa. Who knows what would come out of that? But, if there were a targeted amendment that were adopted by the states, I think the only provision I would amend is the Amendment Provision. I figured out, at one time, what percentage of the populace could prevent an Amendment to the Constitution. And, if you take a bare majority in the smallest states by population, I think something less than two percent of the people can prevent a Constitutional Amendment. It ought to be hard, but it shouldn’t be that hard.”)

there you go again with jealousy over COS funding. I guess you are disappointed that you own non-existent “solutions” and ideas aren’t receiving the same level of funding. Maybe you should consider whether your ideas and “solutions” are workable and worthy of support.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.